Log in

View Full Version : Russia's "White Libertarians"



Kiev Communard
26th September 2010, 19:51
:D They are the craziest reactionaries I have seen on the Web so far.

http://community.livejournal.com/nationalliberal/profile

Some translation (by Google,as I don't want to waste my time actually translating some racist trash:


White Libertarian Manifesto:


White Libertarians (White Libertarians, then WL) - a new racial-common world, destined to replace the mindless collectivist-Etatist concept of "nation".

WL favor of demolition of any State, as its outdated centralistic artificial structures. Simultaneously, WL opposes anarchy (ie, anarchy). State on the one hand, and complete anarchy on the other - we oppose the concept of self-minded white settlement.

WL recognize only those laws which they adopted for themselves. All other laws - not invented by us and, therefore, not for us - in our eyes - are illegitimate.

WL professes the principle of infinite konfederalizatsii. We welcome the disintegration of all political entities into smaller ones. So, for example, we support all separatist movements, particularly in Europe (eg, the Basques, or, more successful precedent - Catalans). Our maxim - from a - K of the set!

WL oppose the term "democracy" (people power) - the term "WL-self" (our power over our own). We do not want and do not consider it necessary to take into account in our affairs the interests of the millions rabble (ohlosa) and do not want to live with him under one roof. Hence - the idea of self-belolibertarianskih communities (settlements).

WL deny cheating Masonic concept of "natural rights" and "universal morality". The moral individual, and the right - invented category (no rights do not exist). Each common world are free to devise its own ethos and, hence, its own system of rights. Once again - WL for the right, and for morality, but for our system of law, based on our system of basic values, rather than a Masonic-Enlightenment "universal".

WL, denying imposed on us by necessity to live in someone else's laws not of our state will not accept all types of obligations to such (as such). Including - financial. We feel the need to pay a bribe (taxes), a stranger to us people on the contents of external us people - a crime against our interests and theft.

WL favor of a system of financial mutual aid, but only for their own, members of a belolibertarianskoy community.

Fazit: We understand who we are (including free white people, united shtirnerianskimi values), identified themselves as rasovomirovozzrencheskaya or rasovokulturnaya community - and now it's our goal - to live by those laws which we consider correct for myself and the maximum distance from all other power over us . The ultimate goal - the creation of independent belolibertarianskih settlements. Home - creating an internal market and sabotage taxes OUTSIDE WL-structures.


Above: White libertarians - is not just a social movement, a new racial-common world. Running to replace its outdated concept of "national" and "etnogosudarstv. We believe that the madness in the 21 century zhit nationalities, the presence of communication networks can form new groups to kvazietnicheskie clearer fundamentals - ideological, professional and corporate. Nation in the classical sense no longer needed. How, indeed, the nation-state and the state in general. We close
the idea of self-white communities of like-minded people who share pravolibertarianskie values.

In short, they are bunch of mindless pseudo-Stirnerian Russian Nazis adoring bourgeois values (as they explicitly state) and General Vlasov - basically Neo-Liberal pro-White Guard Racialist anti-masonry National Anarcho-Capitalists (if this even makes sense :D).

Nolan
26th September 2010, 20:12
These third positionist idiots get weirder by the day.

Dimentio
26th September 2010, 20:21
Basically just national anarchism with a new face. They have done one mistake though.

Tried to ride on libertarianism's popularity. Libertarianism have not as far as I'll know managed to organise anything. That is because organisation demands collective action, which libertarianism is ill-suited for.

Kiev Communard
26th September 2010, 20:30
These third positionist idiots get weirder by the day.

No, they are not third positionists. They explicitly denounce any form of socialism (including Anarchism) or state-based nationalism, instead opting for the "racially pure self-governed communities of right-wing Libertarianism's followers" and praise "bourgeois values" - the thing that "true" third positionists would never openly do. In fact, they admire Ayn Rand greatly :D.

Nolan
26th September 2010, 20:35
So they're just racist cappies?

Kiev Communard
26th September 2010, 20:46
So they're just racist cappies?

They are pro-white supremacy "Anarcho"-cappies adoring Hitler's "anti-Bolshevik crusade" and the White Guards.

Lt. Ferret
26th September 2010, 20:47
Basically just national anarchism with a new face. They have done one mistake though.

Tried to ride on libertarianism's popularity. Libertarianism have not as far as I'll know managed to organise anything. That is because organisation demands collective action, which libertarianism is ill-suited for.



im prettys ure in the states, for every vote the CPUSA gets, the libertarian party gets about 10,000. pretty good organization.

RGacky3
26th September 2010, 21:15
No one on the left takes the CPUSA seriously, so thats a terrible comparison.

Dimentio
26th September 2010, 22:01
im prettys ure in the states, for every vote the CPUSA gets, the libertarian party gets about 10,000. pretty good organization.

The greatest success of the Libertarian Movement has been Tea Party, and that will only ensure the success of the Republicans.

Dimentio
26th September 2010, 22:02
One more question. Is interrupt_00h behind the white libertarians (last time I saw, he was leading a king of Queer-rights nazi organisation, but that maybe phailed)?

revolution inaction
26th September 2010, 22:51
im prettys ure in the states, for every vote the CPUSA gets, the libertarian party gets about 10,000. pretty good organization.

the cpusa are pro capitalist reactionaries, and your point is what?

Bud Struggle
26th September 2010, 23:27
the cpusa are pro capitalist reactionaries, and your point is what?

I'm a member. We're mostly Democrats with a 'tude! :D

Lt. Ferret
27th September 2010, 03:17
the cpusa are pro capitalist reactionaries, and your point is what?


that individualists will meet on their own terms quite a bit more easily than collectivists will meet on some council's terms.

revolution inaction
27th September 2010, 15:58
that individualists will meet on their own terms quite a bit more easily than collectivists will meet on some council's terms.

i'm not really sure what your saying here

Lt. Ferret
27th September 2010, 16:05
free voluntary exchange brings people together more than communist councils, parties, or cliques.

graymouser
27th September 2010, 16:20
im prettys ure in the states, for every vote the CPUSA gets, the libertarian party gets about 10,000. pretty good organization.
The CPUSA hasn't run since 1984, so it's pretty pointless to consider their candidate in totals.

2008 is a good example of how leftists have been relating to presidential elections. Ralph Nader had 736,804 votes, more than Libertarian Bob Barr's 524,524. Cynthia McKinney had 161,195 votes. The open socialists were Roger Calero/SWP (7,561), Brian Moore/SPUSA (6,566), and Gloria La Riva/PSL (6,808). Some socialist groups (ISO, Solidarity, Socialist Alternative) were supporting Nader; others (Workers World, Workers International League, Socialist Organizer) were behind McKinney. The open socialist vote was 20,935 - about 3.9% of Barr's total, or 25 votes for the Libertarian per socialist vote. Of course, social democrats - DSA is the biggest "socialist" group in the US, and CPUSA and CCDS have probably 500-1000 members each - supported Obama. But since more socialists supported Nader or McKinney than openly socialist candidates, you can't make the judgment you're trying to make.

Dimentio
27th September 2010, 17:46
free voluntary exchange brings people together more than communist councils, parties, or cliques.

Like the Order of Cosmic Engineers.

They wanted to build an artificial island where they would conduct transhumanist experiments. They summoned the costs, and realised that none of them individually could purchase such an island, and decided to drop the idea and drop themselves.

As for libertarians vs leftists. How many libertarians were in this?

http://www.armytimes.com/xml/news/2007/10/ap_antiwarprotest_071027/071028_protests_800.JPG

Nolan
27th September 2010, 19:47
free voluntary exchange brings people together more than communist councils, parties, or cliques.

Because the libertarian party isn't a political party with a line. No.

Lt. Ferret
27th September 2010, 23:40
Like the Order of Cosmic Engineers.

They wanted to build an artificial island where they would conduct transhumanist experiments. They summoned the costs, and realised that none of them individually could purchase such an island, and decided to drop the idea and drop themselves.

As for libertarians vs leftists. How many libertarians were in this?

http://www.armytimes.com/xml/news/2007/10/ap_antiwarprotest_071027/071028_protests_800.JPG



probably a lot, since the military is funded by taxation which is taking peoples money by force. my wife hates the military and is also about as militantly pro-palestine as you can get, and shes a capitalist.

Red Commissar
28th September 2010, 00:25
Crappy logo and the obligatory no freemasons. Amusing.

Raúl Duke
28th September 2010, 01:32
Libertarianism have not as far as I'll know managed to organise anything. That is because organisation demands collective action, which libertarianism is ill-suited for.


im prettys ure in the states, for every vote the CPUSA gets, the libertarian party gets about 10,000. pretty good organization.

Electoral vote machines do not count as movements and aren't important; also the CPUSA is irrelevant.

The only thing resembling a libertarian movement that was perhaps started initially by libertarians is, as Dimentio said the Tea Party; However, in the beginning (the more libertarian phase) the tea party was weaker/smaller than the broader anti-war movement (the tea party only seemed like a "big deal" because of their media representation).


The greatest success of the Libertarian Movement has been Tea Party, and that will only ensure the success of the Republicans.

Exactly, over time they've become more like an auxiliary for the "crazy faction" inside the GOP which is using this movement to weaken other (some more sane) factions/politicians/etc inside the GOP. Primarily they do this by stirring support to their prefered pre-candidates (which tend to be the whackiest/crazy/etc pre-candidates out of the GOP state primaries lists) in primaries. What needs to be seen, as a measure to its effectiveness as an Republican auxiliary movement, is if these tea party-endorsed candidates can really get elected.

However, there is also another developments that needs to be taken into account, such as groups like "Young Americans for Liberty" and/or "Students for Liberty." (I'm not sure if they're the same thing or not)

These are attempts at a more-or less (I heard that it is "GOP-funded" via think-thanks, etc where Republican politicians are influential in or are members/leaders) libertarian student movements

Revolution starts with U
28th September 2010, 06:35
Race is not a valid phenomenon, but.. even if it were
Russians are white?

Kiev Communard
28th September 2010, 09:27
Russians are white?


Apparently :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Huxley_whites.png




Huxley's map of racial categories from On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind (1870). [19] Huxley's Xanthochroi or "light whites" are shown in red. They gradually blend into the category of Melanochroi or "dark whites" (shown in pink) in Southern Europe and North Africa, and into the Mongoloids B category ( light brown) in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Blending of all three types mentioned is indicated for the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, Persia and Northern India.

Further reading - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

So you can see that, to chagrin of racialists, not only Slavs but also Arabs, Berbers and Afghans are, from the scientific anthropological point of view, whites.

AK
28th September 2010, 10:25
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Huxley_whites.png

Confusing maps like this make me wonder how is it that people even accept the existence of race.

Kiev Communard
28th September 2010, 10:27
Confusing maps like this make me wonder how is it that people even accept the existence of race.

Of course, the so-called 'pure' races do not even exist. As you can see from the map, even "the purest Nordics" (i.e. northern Swedes) have quite profound traces of Mongoloid (in this case, Saam) lineage.

Dimentio
1st October 2010, 08:58
Huxley himself was a racist, and that map is an attempt to "prove" that Celts are inferior to Englishmen. In the 19th century, racists very much used pseudo-science to prove their own opinions.

Hablo-groups and real genetic inter-relations are interesting. For example the inhabitants on the British isles are quite much related to the Basques and to the Berbers of North Africa.